godelian wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 2:28 pm
Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 2:07 pm
Absolutely nothing like it. You don't even know what it is that you are encrypting. You don't even know where it is.
So how are you encrypting it?
That happens in the brain. It is not known how.
Type error. Again.
Why do you keep confusing whys, whats, wheres and hows?
The data owner knows EXACTLY what it is that they are encrypting and where it is.
The unencrypted data is with the owner.
The encrypted data is with the entity performing the computation.
godelian wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 2:28 pm
In a zero-knowledge argument of knowledge, neither the prover nor the verifier can decrypt the entire message. In fact, nobody can. There is no need for the entire original message. Only some parts are readable to the prover, while the verifier can only see that the message is legitimate.
In zero-knowledge arguments only one side has zero knowledge. The side that expects the proof. The side doing the proving has non-zero knowledge.
I have zero knowledge of the location of the message, so I keep asking you WHERE is it?
You have non-zero knowledge of the message's location. Why can't you prove to me you know where it is?
And if you can't prove to me you know where the message is; or what the message is. Why should I conclude anything other than: You have no fucking idea what you are talking about!